Rajashree Rout @ Gantayat Vs Pabitra Mohan Rout

Office Note shows that Notice in the admission matter issued to sole Opposite Party returned undelivered with postal endorsement “always absent, hence returned to sender”.

¶14

On perusal of record, it is apparent that this application has been filed under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for transfer of the C.P. Case No.71 of 2024, which are stated to be pending in the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Jeypore in the district of Koraput to the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Nabarangpur.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner through virtual mode submitted that the Petitioner-wife is residing with her parents at village-Majhiguda in the district of Nabarangpur and the distance between Nabarangpur and Jeypore is around 60 kilometres, which causes inconvenience for the Petitioner to attend the court

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

proceeding on each date. Therefore, the C.P. Case No.71 of 2024 is required to be transferred from the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Jeypore in the district of Koraput to the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Nabarangpur.

¶18

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 6. Considering the contentions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, this Court finds the reason stated by the Petitioner is not good ground for transfer of the case from Jeypore to Nabarangpur. Accordingly, this Court declines to entertain this application for transfer solely on the ground of inconvenience in travelling around sixty kilometers, which is, therefore, dismissed.

¶19

6.1. Though it is well settled vide N.C.V. Aishwarya Vrs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 that given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer, and, while considering the argument of the husband opposing the transfer on the ground that it was equally inconvenient for him to travel a distant place and that he would be willing to pay the expenses for the wife’s travel to the Court to attend proceeding, it is held in Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Vrs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, (2005) 12 SCC 237 that in these type of matters, the convenience of the wife would be preferred over the convenience of the husband, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Preeti Sharma Vrs. Manjit Sharma, (2005) 11 SCC 535 , has been pleased to make the following observation:

¶20

“Merely because the petitioner is a lady does not mean she cannot travel to Mazaffar Nagar. At the highest she can be paid expenses

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

for travel and stay. We, therefore, direct that the respondent shall pay to the petitioner and a companion travel and stay expenses on every occasion that the petitioner is required to go to Muzaffar Nagar. The Court at Muzaffar Nagar shall ensure that such payment is made to the petitioner on every occasion. With these directions, the transfer petitions are dismissed.”

¶23

However, with the advent of technology, facilities have been put in place in most of the Courts in this State, appearance through virtual conferencing mode is encouraged. It would suffice to indicate that the petitioner is granted liberty to seek permission of the Court concerned to appear through virtual conferencing mode. In the event such a prayer is made, the Court concerned shall not insist upon the personal/physical attendance of the petitioner unless absolutely necessary.

¶24

With the aforesaid observation, this TRP(C) stands disposed of. Accordingly, the pending I.A., if any, shall stand disposed of. 9. Registry is instructed to communicate the copy of this order to the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Jeypore in the district of Koraput forthwith.

¶25

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶26

Laxmikant

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-Apr-2025 19:36:29

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Rajashree Rout @ Gantayat v. Pabitra Mohan Rout

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajashree Rout @ Gantayat v. Pabitra Mohan Rout

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siba Narayan Vs Rajalaxmi Panda

Murshed Alli Saha Vs Sakina Bibi

Balaram Naik Vs State and Ors.

Neelamadhab Sahoo Vs Mamina Mahana

Smitarani Seet Vs Rajeev Ranjan Seth

Dibyajyoti Behera Vs Deepanwita Sahoo